1. Field
This application relates to an aesthetically non-objectionable, re-usable, dispensing receptacle system as a means for extending the freshness and usability of pour-able contents beyond what would be experienced if the contents were to have been stored in some rigid or semi-rigid opened original packaging.
2. Prior Art
Most food products, liquids, and chemicals are stored in original packaging sealed containers until initial use. These containers are primarily intended for shipping, marketing and storage of the contents. These containers offer various levels of effectiveness in preserving the contents from chemical and physical changes that would degrade usefulness. However, once any original seal is broken, most contents will begin to degrade. Additionally, contamination from environmental particulates, microbes, insects, etc., becomes a cause for concern. One example of chemical change is oxidization. It is well known that vitamins in freshly extracted vegetable juices suffer rapid deterioration when the juice is exposed to ambient air for even a few hours. Dry food products such as spices, herbs, coffee, tea leaves and such, lose flavor and aroma over time as a result of simple exposure to air. Food products containing essential oils, such as pine nuts, will readily turn rancid as the delicate oil from the nuts interacts with void air within a partially dispensed jar. Physical factors such as changes in humidity are another cause for degradation of usefulness.
Liquids that emit noxious or dangerous fumes when exposed to air, or are readily evaporative would benefit from limiting the surface area exposed to air and decreasing the time period for each occurrence of exposure. In some circumstances, exposure to the UV rays of daylight will have an adverse effect upon the contents. For this reason, we see many containers that are opaque, or tinted in color. Another effect of exposure to ambient air is natural fermentation. Sugar, oxygen and yeast (present upon the skin of the food from which the juice was extracted) naturally convert to alcohol and carbon dioxide (CO2). Fermentation itself can be a natural means of preservation. However, fermented, juice, commonly referred to as wine, will suffer spoilage by changing into vinegar in as little as one weeks time.
Few original packaging containers address storage problems related to infrequent, repeated, or small quantity dispensing. Being utilitarian, most original container designs and graphics are directed toward durability and marketing and not tabletop appearance. It is therefore common practice to transfer contents from an original package into a storage receptacle or a service vessel. Ease of use is a desirable property of receptacles designed for dispensing small quantities of some contents. This application is related to presentable dispensing receptacles that can extend freshness and usefulness for weeks, and in some cases months at room temperature beyond the typical time period of an opened original container.
Because opened wine is a notoriously volatile substance which degrades rapidly, it provides an excellent benchmark for development of storage, dispensing and preservation methods in general. To date, over 450 patents have been granted for inventions that relate to wine preservation alone. Many more have been granted for inventions related to the storage and preservation of other products in general. The need for, and usefulness of, inventions addressing this topic is not in question. The pursuit of viable solutions continues. Evolution in material science and manufacturing techniques allow for possibilities which were impossible in the past.
Four basic approaches in prior art can be found from analysis of patents that have been previously granted for the purposes stated. Chemical preservatives aside, these approaches employ the use of a vacuum, the introduction of some inert gas, partitioning the product from air by the use of a bladder, or the employment of a follower as a means of partitioning contents within a container or receptacle. Although each of these approaches posses merit, for the intended scope of this application, they also have shortcomings.
Vacuum—U.S. Pat. No. 4,763,803 to Schneider, Bernardus J. J. A. (1988) has met with enormous commercial success for short term preservation. Experience with this product however, was disappointing, and led to the embodiments presented in this patent application. Although simple to use and inexpensive, the storage duration for a half-full bottle of red wine held at room temperature is no more than 7 days, and less for smaller quantities wine being stored in the original bottle due to increased ratios of air to product. Internet critics state that after a number of days, air finds its way back into the bottle and must be pumped out again. This may be due to the effects of aging of the stopper material and/or the inefficiency of the hand pump used. A superior vacuum force could be employed with the patented “stopper”, but care must be taken to avoid bottle implosion. While motorized vacuum devices employing some pressure control mechanism would certainly be more effective than a simple hand pump, the additional cost and complexity of those receiving patents have not found favor in the consumer market, whereas the hand pump, though limited in effectiveness, has achieved success. An example of a motorized pump is seen in U.S. Pat. No. 5,215,129 to Berresford, Richard and Man, David T. (1993).
Inert Gas Introduction—Many patents have been issued for preservation devises that depend upon the introduction of an inert gas to act as a barrier between wine (specifically) and ambient air. It cannot be disputed that this method of preservation has the potential to be very effective for long term preservation. U.S. Pat. No. 6,913,167 to Phelps et al. (2005) is one such example. Unfortunately, the apparatus is quite complicated and therefore quite expensive. While achieving acceptance at wine bars and other commercial establishments, it is far from the reach of most consumers from a cost standpoint. Recently, simple canisters of inert gas have been marketed for use by the average consumer. However, availability of these canisters at a retail level is limited. It has become accepted that the introduction of inert gas requires the use of an additional product for best results. The Wine Enthusiast, a leading authority on wine and wine related products, concluded that this additional product is a bottle closure that creates a seal. The reason for this may be related to damage a cork may experience due to age, quality or damage by cork screw removal. The gas must be re-introduced each time the container has been opened for dispensing. Many cooking recipes call for only an once or two of wine—the balance of the bottle must be stored. French cuisine calls for the use of numerous wines according to the recipe being prepared. Sauterne, Port, Sherry, and the like may be used infrequently for de-glazing a sauté pan, and quantities may be as little at an ounce or two. Over time, the frequent use of inert gas may prove costly.
Bladder—Conceptually, the use of an expandable or collapsible bladder as a means to separate contents from air is very sound. This method has been successfully used for decades by dairy companies serving milk in institutional settings and by the Franzia winery. This method is clearly illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 3,696,969 issued to De Van et al. (1972). This method of preservation is implemented in the packaging process and does not address re-usability or adaptability on a consumer level for other than originally purchased products. More specific to wine preservation is U.S. Pat. No. 4,392,578 issued to Fipp, Beverly A., Fipp, Bernard E. and Haller, John L. (1983). This patent requires a means for pumping air into the bladder, forcing the bladder to expand against the contents. In this manner, the contents are both separated from ambient air, and are urged out of the container. However, this quite complicated system requires the implementation of a number of valves as well as a non-reusable pressure supply. There is no claim referencing potential re-usability of this system. Perhaps this is due to the bladder materials potential to stretch out of shape after a single use, much the way a balloon does after it has been expanded for a number of days. Ultra flexible materials rely on chemical components to ensure flexibility. The use of these chemicals suggests the possibility of changing the flavor or aroma of the contents due to contact with the bladder. There is limited commercial acceptance of this concept, but none at the consumer level.
Follower—A patentability search revealed follower patents issued as far back as the 1870's. U.S. Pat. No. 203,180 to Miller, J. (1878) is the earliest such patent. The single claim of this patent expressly states that the floating cover be “substantially as described”. The description specifically states that the follower is “provided with one or more suitable air vents”. Claims in this current application eliminates these air vent element(s), thus negating possible infringement. Also of note is U.S. Pat. No. 1,990,918 to Ramsden, Benjamin (1932). This patent is very closely related to this application, claiming a float upon the surface of a liquid. The stated purpose in each claim specifically addresses the prevention of the formation of scum that might form on the surface of milk held in a receptacle for dispensing. This application does not address, nor is it concerned with the formation of “scum” on the surface of milk. However, the description of the relationship of the float and the vessel is identical to this application. U.S. Pat. No. 2,227,172 to Bainton, Raymond (1940) repeatedly, and without exception, claims a slit in the partition. The buoyant follower in this application eliminates this slit. U.S. Pat. No. 3,256,977 to Gunnar, Nimrod, Pettersen and Askim (1966) also claims a buoyant follower for similar usage. However, this patent was issued with claims of a “filled container” that has a restricted neck and a shoulder. The vessel in this application may be a filled container in some embodiment due to obviousness, but the container claimed eliminates the shoulder and neck elements. In practice, the use of a “floating cover” or buoyant follower, as a sole means of preservation proved quite limited in effectiveness, and is therefore problematic. This could explain why such a simple means of preservation have not been employed in containers, vessels, or closure solutions in current use. It was found that if the follower corresponds too closely to the inner wall of the vessel, the contents will evaporate in this gap. A crust will form in the gap and adhere to both the vessel wall and the follower. This crust will arrest the movement of the follower, impeding ready dispensing of liquid contents. Breaking the crust-seal causes the follower to move uncontrollably within the vessel, possibly causing the contents to splash out of the vessel. If the contents were red wine, and the surface on which the vessel is placed happened to be a table cloth, the resulting stain would curtail further use of the device. These followers may well serve the purposes of the specifications which support their specific claims, but are seriously limited beyond those specifications, even if the claims suggest broader usefulness.
Experience with the above methods, particularly the Vacu-Vin product, U.S. Pat. No. 4,763,803, as issued to Schneider, Bernardus J. J. A. (1988), revealed that a combination of more than one approach, with modifications, promised to provide acceptable results. Simple displacement of the air, proved simpler and at least as effective as evacuating the air using a hand pump. Due to the risks of implosion, displacement was deemed safer and more appropriate for vessels with thinner walls and larger openings. Finally, displacement eliminates the need for some additional, separate pumping apparatus.
To date, hundreds of patents that relate to containers, closures and receptacles have been issued. The use of a receptacle is chosen for practical and aesthetic reasons. Many receptacles address ease of handling, others address the efficient, repeated dispensing of the contents. Some receptacles provide preservative attributes. Receptacles may be selected because they are more suitable for table presentation of some food or beverage. Prior art, while focused on specific inefficiencies, often fails to address simplicity and sensitivities. It is not necessary to indefinitely preserve contents that are intended for use. It is desirable to provide a means capable of addressing all of the aspects of usage, within a scope that is comprehensive, reasonably efficient, re-usable, marketable, balanced and simple. Prior art has failed to meet these combined goals.